Get WWDC Video

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses that data is bundled (no network) and warns that transcripts run to tens of KB, with includeTranscript=false omitting them. That payload-size context is genuinely useful and not derivable from the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and 'no network' scoping are front-loaded, and the colon-list of returned fields is dense but scannable. The payload warning is placed at the end where it is most actionable; the single long sentence is slightly run-on but not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so thoroughly: title, year, topics, HD/SD download links, covered docs, transcript, timestamped code examples, and related sessions. Combined with readOnlyHint and the size caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the practical consequence of includeTranscript (transcripts can be tens of KB, set false to omit), which adds meaning about why and when to flip the flag rather than just restating its default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (retrieve one WWDC session) and delineates scope ('the bundled data, as text (no network)'), then enumerates exactly what the session record contains. An agent can tell it apart from list/search siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the getter shape (one session keyed by year + videoId), and the includeTranscript note hints at the token-cost tradeoff. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search_wwdc_content or get_wwdc_code_examples.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.